Category Archives: Patentability

DC patent ineligibility holding for Illumina’s fetal DNA-related claims reversed

Posted on March 20, 2020 by

Illumina, Inc., Sequenom, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. et al. Docket No. 2019-1419 LOURIE, MOORE, REYNA March 17, 2020 Brief Summary: DC finding that Illumina’s fetal DNA-related claims are patent ineligible reversed. Summary: Illumina appealed DC decision finding certain claims … Continue reading →

Posted in Patent Eligibility (101), Patentability, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Method of treatment claims eligible under 101 (DC reversed); DC obviousness findings affirmed

Posted on March 17, 2020 by

Boehringer Ingelheim Pharm. et al. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. Docket No. 2019-1172 DYK, MOORE, HUGHES March 16, 2020 Non-precedential Brief Summary: DC decision of ineligibility under 101 for method of treatment claims reversed; invalidity for double-patenting and obviousness affirmed. Summary: … Continue reading →

Posted in Double Patenting, Obviousness, Patentability, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Method of manufacturing claims ineligible under § 101 since “the mechanism for achieving the desired result” involving a natural law “are not actually claimed”

Posted on October 9, 2019 by

American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC, et al. Docket No. 2018-1763 NEWMAN, TARANTO, STOLL October 3, 2019 Brief Summary: DC holding that AAM’s “method for manufacturing” claims are patent ineligible under § 101 affirmed (e.g., “the mechanism … Continue reading →

Posted in Patentability, Section 101 (see also Patentability), Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Method of treatment claims patent ineligible under 101 for being “focused on screening for a natural law” (“the invention does not improve treatment…by taking advantage of the body’s natural process”)

Posted on August 28, 2019 by

INO Therapeutics LLC, et al. v. Praxair Distribution Inc., et al. Docket No. 2018-1019 DYK, CHEN, STOLL August 27, 2019 Non-precedential Brief Summary: DC finding that “method of treating patients” claims ineligible under section 101 affirmed as the claims are … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Patent Eligibility (101), Patentability, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

DC decision that wireless communication claims are patent eligible under section 101 reversed

Posted on August 26, 2019 by

The Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Techtronic Industries Co., et al. (“TTI”) Docket No. 2018-2103, -2228 LOURIE, O’MALLEY, CHEN August 21, 2019 Brief Summary: DC finding of no invalidity under section 101 reversed; anticipation finding affirmed. Summary: TTI appealed DC grant … Continue reading →

Posted in Patent Eligibility (101), Patentability, Software, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

DC finding of personal jurisdiction over foreign entities and finding genetic testing claims ineligible under 101 affirmed

Posted on August 15, 2019 by

Genetic Vet. Sciences, Inc. (“PPG”) v. Laboklin GmbH & Co., KG, The University of Berlin Docket No. 2018-2056 WALLACH, HUGHES, STOLL August 9, 2019 Brief Summary: DC finding of personal jurisdiction over foreign university and its foreign licensee affirmed; finding … Continue reading →

Posted in Jurisdiction, Patentability, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Federal Circuit denies Athena’s petition for rehearing of finding that its claims relating to a correlation between antibodies to a protein (“MuSK”) and neurological disorders are invalid under § 101.

Posted on July 5, 2019 by

Athena Diagnostics, Inc. et al. v. Mayo Collaborative Services, LLC Docket No. 2017-2508 NEWMAN (D), LOURIE, STOLL February 6, 2019 (Petition for rehearing denied July 3, 2019) Update (July 3, 2019): Athena’s petition for rehearing regarding the invalidation under § … Continue reading →

Posted in Patent Eligibility (101), Patentability | Leave a comment